Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe[W:266]

[Gimmesometruth]

What else did the Chairman say before and after those 2 points?

Nothing that nullifies them, and if you watch the hearing, a whole lot of questions and statement by him (and the other GOP members that follow on his lead) that are focused on those 2 points.

 

[bubbabgone]

You do understand that as a supposed impartial, bi-partisan committee leader of the current investigation into these matters, that making this call:

but it has nothing to do with the Russian investigation

... when clearly it's about Trump, and about foreign governments (scrubbed), is your error, and his error (if he made an error and did not do this intentionally to run cover for the WH, which seems far more likely.
The determination of whether or not its relevant is the subject of the investigation, which he would have the committee ranking D at least, if not the entire committee, hear that information, and they could conclude as a committee on its relevance.

That of course, didn't happen. So because you can't defend that, and its by the way Nunes did this, indefensible, you have no case to make.

How do you know he wasn't told what it was about on the call?
And he'd certainly know after he viewed the material that it wasn't about Trump and Russia but rather Trump and the transition team surveillance picked on wiretaps.
The rest of the Intel oversight committee should be concerned about that even though it's not relevant to Russia.
They were offered and accepted the invitation.

 

[Mach]

How do you know he wasn't told what it was about on the call? .

We cannot reasonably verify ANYTHING he was told, because it occurred in private, without at least the ranking D present to verify it as well.

That's the entire point bubbabgone. How do we know...we don't, and that is EXACTLY the issue. All we have is Nunes word on it, which is exactly the OPPOSITE of why we try to use what...3 separate groups between 2 branches, bi-partisain, to conduct the investigation.

How is this not obvious?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Nunes got the info from the NSC which is an Executive branch office ... housed on the WH grounds, btw. Since Trump is the Chief Executive he was entitled to the information.
So ...
What you should be asking is how come Trump didn't already have the information ... or did he?

Well that is a given, the POTUS does by default have access to it. I haven't seen argument otherwise.

You should also be wondering why if the NSC had the information, wouldn't the FBI and NSA, as examples, also have the information and how come they hadn't already disclosed it to the Intel Committees in the House & Senate?

Apparently it was disclosed to the chairman of the House Intel committee, after all, that IS what we have been discussing in this thread. Where have you been?

 

[bubbabgone]

We cannot reasonably verify ANYTHING he was told, because it occurred in private, without at least the ranking D present to verify it as well.

That's the entire point bubbabgone. How do we know...we don't, and that is EXACTLY the issue. All we have is Nunes word on it, which is exactly the OPPOSITE of why we try to use what...3 separate groups between 2 branches, bi-partisain, to conduct the investigation.

How is this not obvious?

We can ask the 2 or 3 people who were there and knew what he was told and what it was about.

You can't have an investigation ... any investigation ... unless you get information.
That's what he was doing.
His committee should already have had it. They didn't. Now they will.

 

[Mach]

We can ask the 2 or 3 people who were there and knew what he was told and what it was about.

When those 3 are the ones in question, that makes no sense.

Again, Nunes + White house sources are not the house bipartsian committee.
WH IS part of what's under investigation, so their word and Nunes word in private, is compromised.

His committee should already have had it. They didn't. Now they will.

No, we have no way to verify if any of this information they will be given, is the same as what Nunes had. Which is the entire point, again.

You seem not to disagree, but to simply not understand this. It's worrisome.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

I think I said for you to go with that, I'm fine with you creating sentences like that..do it.

Well now I am in a conundrum.

What context are you confused about...and why I am I required to provide you with the context (again) when you reject the quote in the first place?

Are you arguing that the interview that contained that quote consisted of that single statement? :lol:

I always love seeing posters falling back to the "cherry pick" defense, especially when it describes a response to a specific point made by them (is your insane denial a cherry picked bit of nutttery?) and 2) it is used as a last resort when the fact can't be countered.

You actually cherry picked. You are actually playing dumb that there might be more context then the single sentence you posted. Although I guess you might not be playing...

Also, I love seeing posters falling back to grammar critique when they lose an argument. I love it even more when they get it wrong, though. Thank you for the entertainment.

 

[jmotivator]

We cannot reasonably verify ANYTHING he was told, because it occurred in private, without at least the ranking D present to verify it as well.

That dog won't hunt. Even the article that used the unnamed official to supposedly out Nunes' source vouched for Nunes' characterization of the content of the documents in question.

 

[Mach]

That dog won't hunt. Even the article that used the unnamed official to supposedly out Nunes' source vouched for Nunes' characterization of the content of the documents in question.

Sure, just quote it and link it, and I'll take a look.

 

[JasperL]

The House committee hadn't been getting documents from the Intel agencies ... both Nunes and pencil-neck wrote letters about that.
Nunes gets a call from someone in the NSC who tells him the NSC has information about Trump surveillance but it has nothing to do with the Russian investigation.
Nunes is thinking, the NSC has information and it has nothing to do with the Russian investigation so I should go check it out because we're not getting the information about Trump surveillance we're asking for from the Intel agencies.
It's a different investigation, as was explained and documented here many times already.

It's relevant because that's the behavior of someone with Intel oversight responsibility.

OK, fine, but Nunes lied about his sources, then participated in a charade of 'briefing' the POTUS on information Trump's political appointees handed to Nunes, and then Nunes refused to disclose the info or his sources from the rest of the committee. I'm pretty sure Trump's senior political appointees have ways of getting information to the POTUS.

What's sad if you care about the actual issue - intelligence or WH staff using wiretaps of foreign agents to in fact keep tabs on U.S. personnel - then Nunes is just killing the credibility of whatever findings the committee ultimately determines. We now KNOW he's a shill for the WH, and so he's not impartial and his conclusions are obviously biased in favor of finding fault with Obama people. Even if he's correct, many will not believe him, or have an excuse to dismiss him, because of his stupid and self defeating actions as head of the investigations.

And this crap is serious, which is why COMPETENT people on the Intelligence committee over the years have made a real point of conducting themselves with at least the appearance of bipartisanship and integrity, and Nunes blew that chance.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

Well now I am in a conundrum.

Are you arguing that the interview that contained that quote consisted of that single statement?

You mean a definitive statement in which context is not necessary, and in any event is in fact completely consistent with what Nunes did (or didn't do)? He said he would not reveal his sources, and he did not. What do you expect to learn from context? Nothing. It's a red herring.

 

[prometeus]

Nunes gets a call from someone in the NSC who tells him the NSC has information about Trump surveillance but it has nothing to do with the Russian investigation.

That is your assumption but not a verified fact and Nunes being a lying piece of crap can not be taken at his word.

Nunes is thinking

Yea, here is an opportunity to blow Trump again and he will take it.

the NSC has information and it has nothing to do with the Russian investigation so I should go check it out

Only an idiot would think that. Anyone rational and with integrity in a scenario like that would have said: 'take it to your boss' and not get involved.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

Well now I am in a conundrum.



Are you arguing that the interview that contained that quote consisted of that single statement? :lol:

Are you wanting the whole interview, that you have access to, to answer one particular point you were denying? You already have it, you have already referred to it...what do you have left but to cherry pick out a reported "we" that so confused you? Any other pedantic nonsense you care to indulge in that doesn't make a difference?

You actually cherry picked.

Sure, I cherry picked to answer your cherry picked denial on a single point. You are not even using the term in its correct function.

You are actually playing dumb that there might be more context then the single sentence you posted.

I f you feel that way, go and find the rest of his presser and prove there was more to it.

Although I guess you might not be playing...

No, I'm trying to debate, and I'm doing it with someone who doesn't debate but "plays".

Also, I love seeing posters falling back to grammar critique when they lose an argument.

For me to have lost this point, you would have to have proof that what was presented to counter your denial is false. You have not done that, you are only whining with "cherry-pick" irony.

I love it even more when they get it wrong, though. Thank you for the entertainment.

Again, I fully encourage you to keep using your grammar, it is fine for you and that's what matters to you. More power to you.

 

[JasperL]

Sure, just quote it and link it, and I'll take a look.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/devin-nunes-intelligence-reports.html

The intelligence reports consisted primarily of ambassadors and other foreign officials talking about how they were trying to develop contacts within Mr. Trump’s family and inner circle before his inauguration, officials said.
...
The officials’ description of the intelligence is in line with Mr. Nunes’s characterization of the material, which he said was not related to the Russia investigations when he first disclosed its existence.

That's the only relevant part of the NYT article, but all it says is the intercepts included 'incidental' communications of U.S. persons, was apparently legal, and the targets not Russians. What the source for the story does NOT do is agree or disagree with Nunes that the reports were inappropriately used, or that names that should have been masked were not. The person we're debating is playing cute with this, and has been called on it already.

 

[JasperL]

That is your assumption but not a verified fact and Nunes being a lying piece of crap can not be taken at his word.

Yea, here is an opportunity to blow Trump again and he will take it.

Only an idiot would think that. Anyone rational and with integrity in a scenario like that would have said: 'take it to your boss' and not get involved.

To be fair, another option was, "Great, Rep. Schiff and I will be along at our earliest opportunity to review this information, together." Alternatively, he might have if necessary viewed in private with his source, immediately and fully briefed Schiff on it, then kept it under hat until the documents are formally requested and made available to Schiff, if not the entire committee. Several decent ways to handle it - he chose one way that was completely inappropriate.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

He wouldn't NEED to tell the HIC who his source is because it is readily available to them.

Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat , said Nunes apologized at their meeting Thursday morning. Nunes also promised to provide the same information he's viewed to the committee members but did not offer a specific timeline.
Nunes, a member of the Trump's transition team executive committee, set off a stunning new political controversy Wednesday when he headed to the White House to personally brief President Donald Trump on the revelations. Despite being advised against doing so, sources said Nunes met with Republican members of the Intelligence Committee before his news conference, but did not share information with the Democrats on the committee.

Nunes apologizes to House Intel Committee, member says - CNNPolitics.com

 

[prometeus]

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat , said Nunes apologized at their meeting Thursday morning. Nunes also promised to provide the same information he's viewed to the committee members but did not offer a specific timeline.
Nunes, a member of the Trump's transition team executive committee, set off a stunning new political controversy Wednesday when he headed to the White House to personally brief President Donald Trump on the revelations. Despite being advised against doing so, sources said Nunes met with Republican members of the Intelligence Committee before his news conference, but did not share information with the Democrats on the committee.

Nunes apologizes to House Intel Committee, member says - CNNPolitics.com

Meaningless diversion by Nunes in a pathetic attempt to regain what he trew away while blowing Trump.

 

[bubbabgone]

When those 3 are the ones in question, that makes no sense.

Again, Nunes + White house sources are not the house bipartsian committee.
WH IS part of what's under investigation, so their word and Nunes word in private, is compromised.


No, we have no way to verify if any of this information they will be given, is the same as what Nunes had. Which is the entire point, again.

You seem not to disagree, but to simply not understand this. It's worrisome.

Being part of the POTUS' Executive Office, the NSC is who had the information so that's who told Nunes about it and that's where he went.
It's the information that matters and they had it. Not the time of day or who let him onto the grounds or who saw it first.

What it boils down to is that, preemptively, you don't believe what Nunes said or what he saw and no matter what Schiff sees, if it's at all suggestive of surveillance on Trump you won't believe it.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Being part of the POTUS' Executive Office, the NSC is who had the information so that's who told Nunes about it and that's where he went.
It's the information that matters and they had it. Not the time of day or who let him onto the grounds or who saw it first.

What it boils down to is that, preemptively, you don't believe what Nunes said or what he saw and no matter what Schiff sees, if it's at all suggestive of surveillance on Trump you won't believe it.

Well now, that is ironic, you have been denying for days now what Nunes said in committee.

 

[JasperL]

Being part of the POTUS' Executive Office, the NSC is who had the information so that's who told Nunes about it and that's where he went.
It's the information that matters and they had it. Not the time of day or who let him onto the grounds or who saw it first.

What it boils down to is that, preemptively, you don't believe what Nunes said or what he saw and no matter what Schiff sees, if it's at all suggestive of surveillance on Trump you won't believe it.

That last part is actually true, and why so many people who aren't on the left and care about the actual issue believe Nunes should step down. He's proven himself to be a partisan hack and a shill for the Trump WH, so anyone who believes him on the issue is a fool. Nunes destroyed his own credibility on the issue by participating in this charade. It's his own fault and it's Nunes who you should be angry about, not people just noting him for what he is. Ryan too is blowing it by standing by Nunes, which is also a shame. He has a chance to step up and reclaim the legitimacy of the House intelligence investigations and he's failed.

 

[bubbabgone]

OK, fine, but Nunes lied about his sources, then participated in a charade of 'briefing' the POTUS on information Trump's political appointees handed to Nunes, and then Nunes refused to disclose the info or his sources from the rest of the committee. I'm pretty sure Trump's senior political appointees have ways of getting information to the POTUS.

What's sad if you care about the actual issue - intelligence or WH staff using wiretaps of foreign agents to in fact keep tabs on U.S. personnel - then Nunes is just killing the credibility of whatever findings the committee ultimately determines. We now KNOW he's a shill for the WH, and so he's not impartial and his conclusions are obviously biased in favor of finding fault with Obama people. Even if he's correct, many will not believe him, or have an excuse to dismiss him, because of his stupid and self defeating actions as head of the investigations.

And this crap is serious, which is why COMPETENT people on the Intelligence committee over the years have made a real point of conducting themselves with at least the appearance of bipartisanship and integrity, and Nunes blew that chance.

Nunes said he wouldn't identify his sources. He didn't.

That IS the issue, all right. But what makes you think that practice can never be demonstrated? Or that people who know about them will never step forward. There could easily be evidence that even guys like Schiff wouldn't have the balloons to deny.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

Meaningless diversion by Nunes in a pathetic attempt to regain what he trew away while blowing Trump.

Yeah, and don't forget that at the time of his "apology" he was STILL lying to the committee and the public about his 'sources.'

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Nunes said he wouldn't identify his sources.

achem...

Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat , said Nunes apologized at their meeting Thursday morning. Nunes also promised to provide the same information he's viewed to the committee members but did not offer a specific timeline.
Nunes, a member of the Trump's transition team executive committee, set off a stunning new political controversy Wednesday when he headed to the White House to personally brief President Donald Trump on the revelations. Despite being advised against doing so, sources said Nunes met with Republican members of the Intelligence Committee before his news conference, but did not share information with the Democrats on the committee.

Nunes apologizes to House Intel Committee, member says - CNNPolitics.com

 

[bubbabgone]

That is your assumption but not a verified fact and Nunes being a lying piece of crap can not be taken at his word.

Yea, here is an opportunity to blow Trump again and he will take it.

Only an idiot would think that. Anyone rational and with integrity in a scenario like that would have said: 'take it to your boss' and not get involved.

It's his job to be involved.
In his position he develops sources for things like this.
Besides, his boss may already have known.
Doesn't discount the value of the material.

 

[bubbabgone]

achem...

Yeah, so?